Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Honble Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri,
President & Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Member
RAVI KUMAR—Complainant
versus
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED—Respondent
Original Complaint No. 42 of 1994—Decided on 25.4.1995
Held: As already noticed above, the accident occurred in April, 1993 and the report of the Surveyor was made in July, 1993 specifically mentioning that it was a case of over-loading and if the Insurance Company was accepting its liability in entirety to settle the case at Rs. 2,85,0001otherwise to negotiate with the insured to the extent of its liability. The Insurance Company did not take any action on this report for about six months. Even if the Insurance Company intended to repudiate the claim, there was sufficient time.
There is no reason much less cogent to explain the delay. Thus repudiation by the Insurance Company, in the written statement when the complainant was constrained to file the complaint, cannot be held to be a bonafide act to deny the relief to the claimant, and to force him to approach the civil Court. It is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company in not settling the claim of the complainant with respect to the damages caused to the truck. The complainant is therefore, entitled to the compensation.
It was a case of complete damage to the truck. Since admittedly, there was over-loading of the truck as being non-standard claim, the Insurance Company is liable to the extant of 75%. The Surveyor assessed the damages m a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- The liability of the Insurance Company would be to the extent of 75% of the amount insured which will come to Rs. 2,62,500/-. Apart from the above, the complainant has spent a sum of Rs. 6,000/- for taking out the salvage of the truck from the ditch as per receipt produced. He is entitled to this amount as well. A sum of Rs.3,800/- was paid to the Surveyor as his fee. The complainant is also entitled to this amount. Another sum of Rs. 5,000/- was spent on taking the salvaged truck to the place of business of the complainant from the place of accident. He is entitled to this amount as also. A sum of Rs. 592/ - was paid as toll tax while carrying the salvage of the truck. The complainant is entitled to this amount as well. The total of the aforesaid amount would be Rs. 2,77,892/-. The complainant further claims a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as storage charges, for keeping the salvage of the truck in safe custody. In our view, the complainant is not entitled to this amount in this case. Till the claim of the complainant is settled, the truck or its salvage remained the property of the complainant and for storage of his own property he is not entitled to any damages.
(Paras 8 and 9)
Further held: The case of the building under construction which had been insured would be entirely different whereas in a case of truck which had been totally damaged the liability there and then occurs and if there is a delay in settling of the claim, the claimant can be compensated by way of granting interest on the amount found due and not separately any amount as compensation for speculative business or appreciation in the price of the new truck. Thus on the amount as found due to the claimant as above, he would be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till payment. The claimant would also get a sum of Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses.
(Para 10)
(ii) Motor Accident - Liability of Insurance Company - Policy adopted by Insurance Company as provided in procedural Manual of Motor Claims (own damage and third party) Non standard claims - Overloading of vehicles beyond licensed carrying capacity - Insurance Company liable to extent of 75%. (Para 7)
Result: Complaint allowed accordingly.
Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—Ravi Kumar, Complainant in this complaint filed under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act claims a sum Rs. 8,78,392/- as per details given in the complaint as damages suffered by him on account of accident caused to the truck which was insured with the Opposite Party for a total sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The accident took place on April 3, 1993. Truck No. HIC-727 which was insured, after meeting with accident, fell into a deep Khad. First Information Report was lodged in Police Station Ram Ban. Simultaneously intimation was given to the Opposite Party, the Insurance Company. A Surveyor was appointed to visit the spot and he reported total loss of the truck. Second Surveyor was appointed who assessed Rs. 2,85,000/- as damages on July 24, 1993. The amount was not paid to the Complainant by the Company, in spite of several reminders. In order to avoid litigation, the Complainant agreed to the aforesaid amount before the Surveyor. The period of insurance as contemplated under the policy was from April 15, 1992 to April 14, 1993. Particulars of policy are given in the complaint. Further details of the amount claimed were also given, such as recovery of salvage of the damaged truck Rs. 6,000/-, amount paid to the Surveyor Col. Sehgal Rs. 3,800/-, toll tax paid Rs. 592/-, carriage for bringing the truck to Gurdaspur and for storage at me rate of Rs. 2,000 /-per month Rs. 35,000/-, appreciation in the price of the new truck Rs. 33,000/-, mental agony and harassment Rs. 1,00,000/-and loss of earning at the rate of Rs. 700/- per day from April 3, 1993 to September 16, 1994, date of filing of complaint Rs. 3,50,000/ -. The Complainant also prayed for interest on the amount to be awarded at the rate of 24% per annum ftill payment.
2. The Opposite Party contested the claim by filing written statement, inter alia, raising preliminary objections that under the terms of the Insurance Policy, Annexure R1, no claim was payable and that disputed questions of fact were involved and the Complainant should be left to seek remedy in Civil Court. The truck of the Complainant at the relevant time was carrying load beyond the capacity certified and registered by the Registering Authority. The excessive load was to the extent of 20.15 quintals. On merits, it was asserted that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and the Statute in the matter of overloading of the truck and the case was covered under the general exceptions and limitations as per terms of the policy. The Insurance Company was not bound by any report made by the second Surveyor who had agreed with the Complainant to the amount mentioned in the report. Annexure P-1 filed by the Complainant was not a complete Insurance Policy. Specimen of the Insurance Policy, Annexure R1, was produced. Reference was made to the provisions of Sections 2(14)(15) and 77 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to assert that on account of overloading of the truck, there was breach of the provisions which absolved the Insurance Company. Intimation of accident was duly given to the Insurance Company and ultimately on July 24, 1993 from the report of second Surveyor Col. R.K. Sehgal (Retired), the Insurance Company came to know vide report, Annexure R2, that the truck was over-loaded. Receipt of legal notice was admitted.
3. The Complainant filed replication indicating that Insurance Policy copy of which is Annexure R1 was not supplied to him before the accident. No such disputed questions were involved. F.C.I's food grains were being carried in the truck which was insured with the Opposite Party and the claim of the F.C.I, was settled. It did not lie in the mouth of the Insurance Company to deny its liability qua damage to the truck. With regard to the over-loading of the truck, alternatively claim was made on the basis of guidelines issued in the Manual of the Insurance Company i.e., to the extent of 75%.
4. Both the parties relied upon the affidavits filed
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
